The House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee on Crude Oil Swap on Thursday summoned the chief executive officers of two marketing firms, which participated in the lifting of the country’s crude oil in exchange for refined products.
The firms, Ontario and Aiteo, were given sub-contracts by Duke Oil, a subsidiary of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, to lift crude in exchange for refined products.
The committee, which is chaired by an All Progressives Congress lawmaker from Kwara State, Mr. Zakari Mohammed, has been investigating the controversial exchange agreements between 2011 and 2015.
Mohammed told a news conference in Abuja that the firms had so far shunned invitations to appear before the committee, thus necessitating the summons.
The Pipelines and Product Marketing Company, in its submission to the committee on Wednesday, had revealed how Duke Oil got a contract to lift 33.7 million metric tonnes of crude oil.
However, Duke Oil contracted Aiteo, Ontario and Taleveras to execute the contract on its behalf.
Mohammed stated that while Taleveras sent officials to answer questions on its role in the deal, Aiteo and Ontario had shunned the committee’s invitation.
“Taleveras was here in the morning; they sent their officials here and the committee has heard their submissions,” Mohammed said.
The PPMC had informed the committee that while Ontario still had $98m worth of refined products to deliver to the country, Aiteo was owing Nigeria $37m worth of products.
Mohammed explained that the committee was following due process in getting the chief executive officers of the firms to appear by first inviting them.
“After sending them invitations and they have failed to turn up, the next step is to summon them. They have been summoned and they have to appear before us on Tuesday next week without fail,” he added.
Mohammed stated that a bench warrant for their arrest had also been signed by the Speaker, Mr. Yakubu Dogara, for execution by the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Solomon Arase, should they fail to appear on Tuesday.
He stated, “If they are not here on Tuesday next week, the IG will be asked to arrest and bring them here on Wednesday. We have said that legal representation has no locus standi before us in the parliament.
“Section 89 (1d) of the 1999 Constitution is very clear on the powers of the legislature to issue a warrant of arrest to compel attendance at a parliamentary proceeding.”
Earlier before the committee issued the summons, there was an altercation between members of the committee and the counsel to Aiteo, Chioma Onyeducheta-Uko.
The counsel told the committee that Aiteo would not appear before the committee because the firm was already in court over the swap contract.
“My client not coming here is not because they have no regard for the committee. Their coming here to discuss this matter is sub judice, because there is a matter pending in court on this hearing,” Onyeducheta-Uko argued.
But, Mohammed overruled her on the grounds that filing a suit in court did not amount to a restraining order.
“We have not been served with any court process anyway. Besides, there is a difference between going to court and obtaining an injunction. This is a parliamentary proceeding. If you are not satisfied with our findings, then you can go to court to challenge us,” he stated.
The committee abruptly adjourned sitting without giving her any further opportunity to speak.
0 comments :
Post a Comment